For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.—1 Cor. 11.19.

AResponseto the
Position Statementon
Exclusive PsalmodyOf Sovereign Grace Church at Gettysburg

By Jeremy Kerr

Introduction

The following is a refutation Sovereign Grace Church of Gettysburg's
Session Statement regarding the use of unauthorized hymnody and musical
instruments in worship. As a refutation, most of its content is negative
and lacks much of the positive grounds for the practice of a cappella exclusive
Psalmody. It is highly recommended therefore that the reader, in addition
to reading this document, spend some time reading a number of the defenses
of Exclusive Psalmody and the Regulative Principle of Worship available
on the Internet at http://www.covenanter.org
Of particular value are The "Preface
to the Bay Psalm Book," McLaren's "The
Psalms of Holy Scripture the Only Songs of Zion," and the short article
"Are
Hymns Idols?"

Conceded by the session of Sovereign Grace Church:

We take no issue with...
the "Regulative Principle" which seeks to describe the biblical truth that
God forbids all false worship outside the explicit command and provision
of his Word.

This statement really concedes very little by its use of the terms "all
false worship." The question at hand is not so much, "should we reject
all false worship?" but rather "what worship is false worship, and thus
to be rejected?" The above concession, unless it suggests that there is
some false worship inside "the explicit command and provision of his Word,"
is redundant and concedes nothing to the point.

A more proper assertion of the regulative principle would be the statement
that "God forbids as false, all worship whatsoever which is offered without
the explicit command and provision of his Word."

Next it is suggested that this "regulative principle" should be somehow
identified with the gospel itself. It is asserted that "We seek to identify "
without giving any reason or warrant for thus undermining the ruling of
God's law in this principle, except that God does not need to make a commandment
as a provision for the "protection" of the gospel. This fact however does
not necessarily lead to the conclusion that God has established no law
for the conduct of his people, nor ordinance concerning what service they
shall render him. As a more general rule for the order of God's worship,
this law, never identified in scripture as typical or ceremonial,
nor ever repealed by Him who came not to destroy the law, must be moral.
Further, we may conclude that it is natural law, and not positive, because
nature itself teaches us that no sovereign in any sphere will accept that
as service to himself which he never expressed to be in accordance with
his will, unless it be some service as will be found needful to him or
essentially beneficial to his being or well-being. But God is in no need
of anything that man can offer Him, and has expressly stated that He will
only be pleased with obedience, so that we may not assume that there is
any servicing of God except that which He wills to account as His service,
namely, obedience.

But, if this law is a natural law (established by the will of God as
an essential part of creation itself,) then it is incorporate in nature
created, and thus, as immutable as any other moral law, yea, even the very
law that binds us to worship God. Now, that which has its being in nature
from the creation, does not have its being from the Gospel, for the Gospel
Covenant was established to restore that of creation which was destroyed.
But no law of God needs correction, neither are any laws revoked as moral
laws and directions to obedience upon the account that they are fulfilled
by the Mediator of this Gospel Covenant, therefore, this regulative principle,
which is held forth in essence in the second commandment, is not revoked,
nor even tempered to find compatibility with the Gospel, for the
Gospel itself was introduced (among other reasons) that this law, like
all other moral laws, might finally find "compatibility" with man,
when God shall have fully sanctified His people through the faith of the
Gospel, teaching them to obey his commandments. Therefore, the Regulative
Principle of Worship is not to be "identified with the Gospel."

Further, there can be no evidence to the contrary of this brought forth,
for even this Mediator of the Gospel Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, who
is appointed King over Zion and High Priest over the people of God, did
never abrogate this law. Yea, He held the Pharisees to be in sin because
they did violate it, and when he dwelt among us, subjected Himself to the
same law by singing the ancient songs of Zion, though it was His
great prerogative to appoint the songs to be included in His Psalter, adding
more if he so pleased. But this He did not do, and it is high presumption
to assume that He would have any other to do this, when He never appointed
any apostle or any officer of His Church this responsibility, nor did they
assume the same to themselves. Therefore, it is certain, and evident by
example, that the Classic Regulative Principle, as held forth in
God's law, and no other, is the Gospel Regulative Principle;
and he who seeks to establish any other in its place, seeks to change the
laws of God and to remove not only the ancient landmarks of the Church,
but even the service itself, carrying the sacrifice from the altar of Jerusalem
which sanctifies to the cursed altar of Bethel which turns all "worship"
to sin.

Statement of the issue by Sovereign Grace Church:

The charge that singing
other than canonical Psalms without musical accompaniment is sin, and an
act of "will worship" which adds to the provision God has made for the
worship of his people in the Psalms.

This statement of the issue is accurate. It should also be noted that the
accusation of such will-worship implies an accusation of a violation of
the second commandment and therefore idolatry. The nature of the
idolatry in discussion is not the intended worship of a false God but the
idolatrous and false worship of the true God, which may be termed a worshipping
of devils insofar as God is not thus worshiped and only devils are served.
Often an attempt is made to abstract will-worship and idolatry, but this
is neither honest, nor does it express a proper concern for those that
are involved in this sin. Likewise, this watered-down view of the seriousness
of will-worship idolatry is further reflected in the straw-men arguments
setup in the SGC Statement which were to be refuted. Arguments concerning
the dangers of hymn-singing as an inlet to heresy and the implicit
messages that might be communicated are useful against the institution
of hymn-singing by men, but they do not actually demonstrate that God has
forbidden this institution.

Particular exception is taken to the representation of argument three
as stated, where it is suggested that the reason why psalms and hymns should
not be sung together, is because this would communicate a slighting of
God's truth by setting man's word and God's word on the same level. The
argument is presented as an over-scrupulous and perhaps even superstitious
concern for an implicit message that could possibly be taught through
this practice, that doesn't take into consideration obvious realities with
regard to the powerful nature of the truth itself. However, as childish
as the argument may sound as presented here, and even as presented by some
who do seek to defend the Regulative Principle of Worship, this
argument is not without merit, and one would think that the SGC Session
would be likely to use reasoning similar to this in regard to scripture
reading if the Presbytery of Philadelphia were to command the reading of
excerpts from the Anglican prayer-book interspersed with the scripture
readings for public worship. Other and weightier arguments would certainly
be used, but this would not be mocked. Likewise, it is for a far different
reason that Presbyterians do not sing hymns than that which is suggested
by this representation. Indeed, had God commanded that the hymns of men
should be sung, or had Christ appointed officers to compose new psalms
(whether inspired or not,) Presbyterians would take no offense at the singing
of these songs to the praise of God; rather, they would delight greatly
in doing so in obedience to their good God. What they do take offense at,
is the setting up of a command of men, next to the command of God, seeing
the scriptures so strictly condemn the "commandments of men." Hymns do
not find their way into the worship of God by themselves. Hymns are brought
into the worship of God, and they are brought in by nothing else but
the institutions and commandments of men. Hymns are brought into the church
the same way as musical instruments, holy days, puppet shows, images, multimedia
presentations, choirs, kneeling at the sacrament, altars, bowing down to
the same, signing of the cross in baptism, and all other ceremonies without
the commandment of Godall these are brought in by men who so commanded.
The use and practice of these forms of worship are therefore not an obeying
of God, but an obeying of mennot a service and worship of God, but a service
and worship of men and their idols.

Likewise, the fourth argument stated is also worthy of some note, but
again, there is a serious matter of authorization and appointment that
is ignored here. Had Christ authorized the composition of new hymns, we
would not object to their usage, so long as they were composed and adopted
in accordance with whatever rules He had set down. But this is not the
case.

With regard to the fifth argument, exception is taken to any statements
which might just as easily militate against the use of musical instruments
in the temple by the Jews. This was an ordinance of God which deserves
not the mocking nor complaints of men. It is to be noted therefore, that
the use of musical instruments in the temple under the old dispensation
was for an entirely different purpose than that of any modern congregation.
Nor were instruments appointed for the worship of God in the local assemblies
of the Jews in their synagogues; so that it is evident that the purpose
for which these modern churches have instituted (and so self-commanded)
the use of musical instruments must be a purpose foreign to the people
of God in all that time.

At the introduction to the Response section it is "assumed" that the
points stated as the arguments for exclusive a cappella psalmody "accurately
represent the concern of those who maintain that the 'Regulative Principle'
of worship requires exclusive Psalmody in the worshipping church in a way
rendering all other musical expression an act of 'will worship' and 'strange
fire' which is condemned and prohibited by God" while conceding that the
above arguments are not a comprehensive statement of the position of those
who adhere to the practice of exclusive psalmody. Let it be stated however,
that these articles are neither comprehensive, nor are they accurate in
representing the position, although it is to be granted that they represent
the position just as well as some in the RPCNA and other 'denominations'
who do not know why they worship as they do.

The refutation of the first argument begins with what is a matter most
irrelevant to the discussion. It need not be affirmed whether Ephesians
5.19 or Colossians 3.16 refers to the ordinance of praise as an element
of worshipthe matter still stands the same, that neither of these passages,
commonly referred to as supporting an ordinance of hymn singing because
the English translations of these passages traditionally render humnos
as 'hymns', can be used to prove a warrant for or institution of the
use of any psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs except those found in the
Psalter. If it is granted that the reference here to "psalms, hymns,
and spiritual songs" cannot be proven to refer to anything but canonical
psalms, then the point is madethere is here no support for the institution
of non-canonical hymnody in the worship of God. If it be insisted that
these two verses have no reference to the ordinance of praise, then it
still gives the advocates of non-canonical hymnody no support, and those
calling for an exclusive psalmody from the Psalter shall find their support
for singing the Psalms elsewhere. In fact, the Psalter itself is sufficient
with all of its commands to 'sing' and 'praise' found in the psalms themselves.
The commands and suggestions in our modern hymnals however, have no authority
behind them other thanthe commandments of menand when it is asked "who
hath required this at your hands?" a great many people will be holding
up their 'companion-to-the-bible' hymnals as the answer, but no such answer
will be accepted by Him who delivered to man the hymnal-in-the-bible Psalter
with sufficient commands contained therein to make clear what was His will.

As suggested in the third paragraph of the response to the first argument,
there are some persons who would attempt to make Ephesians 5.19 and Colossians
3.16 the basis for a restricting of unauthorized hymnody from worship.
This is not however the point which true Presbyterians have made from these
verses to defend their practice of exclusive psalmody. It is not argued
that these verses explicitly set forth a practice of exclusive psalmody.
What is true however, is that they exclusively set forth the practice of
psalmody, that is, they do not teach us to go only to the psalms,
but, they do only teach us to go to the psalms. Had there been other
verses in the Bible to direct us to go elsewhere, these sources would also
be authorized by Christ through His apostle. This not being the
case however, Christians are left exclusively with a practice of
psalmody, and therefore practice exclusive psalmody. There need
be no restriction other than "thou shalt not add thereto" to teach Christians
what they ought not to sing. No commandment saying "thou shalt not sing
the abominations of Isaac Watts" is necessary for those who follow only
the commandments of God.

Regarding the first observation on Colossians 3.16 with its comparison
of the NIV and AV translations of this verse, there is no argument among
those that hold to the AV
Psalter (1650 Scottish Psalter) because they also use the AV Bible.
However, these verses need not have an exclusive reference to the ordinance
of praise at all, public or private,it shall still remain that they
do not support the use of any hymns not instituted by Christ. It would
be observed however, that "the word of Christ" mentioned in this verse
should by no means be limited to the Gospel Message or Promise but must
also extend to the Law of Christ. The allowing of the word of Christ to
dwell in the believer richly in all wisdom is the necessary active response
of those who are "renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created
them" as in verse 10. This renewing in knowledge after the image of God
is the work of God, who writes His law upon the hearts of His people and
fills them with a love toward Him that compels them to conform to that
image of God revealed in his Law. This is the obvious meaning of Paul in
II Timothy 3.16 where he writes to Timothy, "All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness," which 'scripture' at that time had reference
to the Law and the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures. So likewise, in
writing to the Colossians, Paul exhorts them to make use of the Psalms
for this end, as they are filled with a thorough expression of Gospel truth,
(especially relating to the gracious justification of sinners,) a commentary
on the entire Christian life with relevant application to all situations,
an abundant expression of admiration at the perfection and wisdom of God's
law, as well as a glorious exposition of the attributes and acts of God
with suitable praise.

In light of this, the reason why Colossians 3.16 does not "mean all
teaching and admonishing among believers which does not cite or explicitly
quote a canonical Psalm is excluded and prohibited" is not because Colossians
3.16 teaches us to use anything else, or because it fails to limit use
to the Psalms (which, as stated was not the purpose of this verse) but
because there are other commands of God which would instruct us
to go about admonishing and teaching one another in a different manner.
This is not true however with the ordinance of praise, concerning which,
whether exercised in public or private, the scriptures point to no other
matter for song than the psalms, and no other authority to teach new psalms,
but those prophets who have now been taken away.

As the SGC statement continues, there is an assertion that "those who
say that the mention of singing in connection with the Psalms in this passage
forbids all singing save the verbatim quotation of canonical Psalms are
obliged by the same logic to say the same thing about teaching and admonishing."
Then follows an accusation of arbitrariness in the application of this
principle by the proponents of exclusive Psalmody. Again, it must be observed
that the proponents of exclusive Psalmody do not say that the "mention
of singing in connection with the Psalms in this passage forbids all singing
save the verbatim quotation of canonical Psalms." It is evident from the
text itself that nothing is specifically forbidden by this positive
command of Paul. There may be some few who make such arguments as above,
but the assertion itself betrays a lack of understanding in regards to
what the real arguments are in favour of exclusive psalmody. The reason
the proponents of exclusive psalmody teach and admonish in words other
than direct quotations from the Psalms is because they are commanded to
do so. If there were no other commands to direct Christians in their teaching
and admonishing of one another, the proponents of exclusive psalmody and
the regulative principle would then take a course similar to that taken
with regards to the ordinance of praise. This however, is not the case,
and nature so clearly teaches otherwise that it seems it would be impossible
to do otherwise if we are to teach and admonish to the extent that God
requires. However, exclusive use of the Psalms as matter of praise does
in no way limit the Christian's ability to praise God according to His
commandments.

The position statement of SGC on this issue again betrays complete blindness
to the real issue at hand by citing II Timothy 3.16, also cited above.
This is the reason why teaching and admonishing are not so restricted as
singing. It is worthy of note therefore, that II Timothy does not say "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for singing,
for praise ." This passage is actually a solution to the alleged contradiction
of the exclusive psalmody position.

In response to the question, "Is there something about expressing that
thanks in song that makes it inherently sinful because the thanks in song
is not a verbatim quotation of a canonical psalm?" where "that thanks"
refers to the expressing of thanks to God in the everyday life of a Christian
and his association with others,the following points should be noted.
First, thanks to God is expressed to God, not to those with
whom we are associate. Thanks to God is one matter of the praise that is
expressed in the singing of the psalms, which is one particular institution
of worship. It is also expressed in prayer, either by an individual, or
by a representative individual among an association of Christians. For
both of these acts of prayer there is scriptural warrant by institution
and examplethis is another institution of the worship of God. Thanksgiving
as a matter of prayer is never offered by the simultaneous prayers of a
group of people, nor is the prayer ever to be made by reading or reciting
the prayers of others, whether inspired or not. This is the liturgical
superstition of the Papacy & the Church of England. It is therefore
evident that this question has reference to an entirely different institution,
seeing as the proponents of exclusive psalmody do never recite the psalms
as prayers and the proponents of hymnody do never sing their own extemporaneous
prayers. The reverse reasoning of the above argument (for the singing of
personal prayers) is just as valid, which would argue for the use of the
psalms as actual prayers. It is expected however, that a commandment by
the 'Presbytery' of Philadelphia to use only the psalms as prayers in worship
on Sabbath would be objected to by Sovereign Grace Church. Secondly,
as intimated above, the hymns used for matter of praise by SGC are not
the thanks that they have offered to God in their everyday lives, nor in
their association with one another. This is obvious truth. The proponents
of hymnody must cease to pretend that their hymns are their prayers. It
is dishonest to pretend that a warrant to pray one's own prayer proves
a warrant to sing one's own songs, and then go and sing Isaac
Watts' songs as if this had been validated. If SGC argues that, for
the substance of her hymns, they are identical to the thanks she offers
daily and when gathered together, then it must be asked if the substance
of her prayers and thanksgiving is not contained in the Psalms? If it is
not, this argues a deficiency in the Psalms, or misdirected prayers on
the part of SGC. If it is, then there is no need for her hymns. At this
point then, arises the discussion of form versus substance, to be
addressed later. Let it be simply stated for now, that if the Psalms are
sufficient for substance, and if form really is not important, then
no Presbyterian church has any reason to sing anything else besides the
1650 Scottish Psalms. These were appointed by a lawful General Assembly.
It is contrary to all order, and in no way conducive to true uniformity,
for synods in America, calling themselves "General Assemblies" to overrule
the decisions of higher church courts by appointing entirely new Psalters
when it is admittedly unnecessary. So much the more then is it disorderly,
and in respect to Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, just plain rebellion,
to appoint new hymns to be included in these (for so they are become) "hymnals."
Thirdly, to answer the question, the proponents of exclusive
psalmody say, "No." The fact that it is not a verbatim quotation of a canonical
psalm does not inherently make the act sinful. Let it be remarked:
First, nothing is sinful except that which is contrary to the revealed
will of God. Nothing is absolutely inherently sinful. An act is
sinful because it is a violation of God's law, which is His revealed will.
Had God's law commanded the singing of Isaac Watts' hymns, or hymns approved
by some special entity, or hymns of our own composing, then there certainly
would not be anything sinful about singing other than verbatim quotations
of the psalms, inherently or otherwise. Second, God's Law commands that
nothing be added to His worship. Adding thereto is therefore sinful. Likewise,
the institution of one's own hymns for the same purpose for which the Psalms
were instituted by Christ, is an obvious adding to those psalms, and practically
can never be seen as anything else, unless some arbitrary circumstance
is added to make these appear as two different ordinances. But then
again, whatever the appearance may be, mere circumstances do not
change the identity of an institution of worship. For this reason, hymn-singing
is sinful, because it is either an ordinance added to God's worship, or
it is essential matter added to an ordinance, for which God has already
made provision. Finally, the act described is sinful because it is presumptuous.
It is not founded on the commandment of God, but the erroneous reasoning
of men. It therefore cannot be done according to Faith. If there is a faith
associated, it is a trusting in the commandments of men,
and not the commandments of God, and therefore it is all the same as no
faith, being no true faith, all which is founded on God's Word.

The accusation of Pharisaism will be ignored and forgiven as a sin of
ignorance. It should only be noted that the Pharisees were those who added
to God's Law the commandments of men and, in spite of their legalism, were
accused by Christ of coming short of or neglecting the law in its fullness
more than any thing else.

The conclusion of the response to the first argument is agreeable to
the proponents of exclusive psalmody. As said before, it should be noted
that although Ephesians 5.19 and Colossians 3.16 do not have an exclusionary
purpose explicitly expressed, they do not either implicitly or explicitly
command the use of any hymns for the purpose of singing outside of the
150 Psalms appointed by God. This response is therefore irrelevant to the
matter brought into discussion by argument one.

At the outset of responding to argument two, SGC confesses that "it
is indeed true that man-made expressions of worship are condemned in the
Bible." This is encouraging, but the remaining discussion presents an unfaithful
representation of the position held by proponents of exclusive psalmody.
Here it is claimed that it is argued in favour of the position of exclusive
psalmody that "all worship which does not consist in the verbatim quotations
of Scripture is, because it is not singing only the words of the Psalms,
man made worship." Let it first be noted that the statement is illogical.
Not all "verbatim quotations of Scripture" are "the words of the Psalms."
It would be possible to sing "verbatim quotations of Scripture" without
singing the Psalms, and this would be just as unauthorized (as uninspired-hymn-singing),
and therefore just as presumptuous an act of will-worship. Second, the
statement is foolish. It amounts to nothing more than saying, "all singing
of hymns is, because they are not psalms, man-made worship." The fact that
hymns are not psalms is not the reason why the institution is man-made,
or man-authorized (that is, a 'commandment of men'.) Had Christians been
commanded to sing other songs of their own composing, the institution of
hymn singing would not be a man-made institution or commandment of men.
Hymns would still have been 'man-made', but their use would have been authorized,
it would have been a commandment of God. The real reason why hymn-singing
is man-made worship is because it is not a commandment of God, nor is it
a fulfilling of the commandment that He has given us, to receive the Psalter
at His hand, and sing His Psalms. It is not merely the fact that hymns
are uninspired that makes the singing of them a commandment of men, but
the fact that the institution of hymn-singing is uninspired, that is, the
authorization is not of God, but of men. The practice itself is a commandment
of men just as much as the words to be sung are commanded of men. Thus,
the exclusive psalmist is not to be identified as one who authorizes
the use of only God's word but rather as one who uses only the words
that God has authorized. He is not seeking to make his own institutions
and commandments, but rather to carefully adhere to the institutions and
commandments of God.

Next, it is argued that "it is possible to glorify God with words that
come from a heart which has been changed by the Spirit of God." Brought
in to demonstrate this are a few verses of scripture, the first of which
is a Psalm (19.14) and has direct application to the author himself. It
is not surprising that the words of David's mouth (namely, all of the Psalm
preceding, for this is the conclusion of the psalm) should be acceptable
in the sight of God. With David, Presbyterians hope and pray that God will
accept these words when sung to Him in accordance with his command and
promise. The last verse (II Corinthians 6.7) is likewise of no use to this
purpose because the text refers not to "truthful speech," but to "the word
of truth," as literal translations such as the AV and the Geneva Bible
read. Whether or not this passage is to be interpreted literally is another
question. Regardless, it is granted that the rest of the passages do bear
out the truth that it is possible for a Christian by the grace of God to
conceive and speak such words as are truthful, edifying, ministering grace
unto the hearers, and a means whereby thanksgiving is expressed to God.
In fact, with regard to the words themselves, it may be said that by a
"common operation of the Spirit," even the unregenerate may conceive and
speak such words as meet all of these same standards in an outward way.
These are not however the standards which qualify any words for use as
praise song. They are not backed with the authorizing seal and approbation
of God's commandment. Again, it is reiterated: the exclusive psalmist is
not to be identified as one who authorizes the use of only God's
word but rather as one who uses only the words that God has authorized.

Continuing with this thought, that "verbal expression offered to God
[that] is not a verbatim quotation of the Psalms does not make it man-made
and therefore false," an attempt is made to support this by claiming that
such expression is an expression of the very life of Jesus Christ. Then
it is claimed that the "fruit of the Spirit" evident in the people of God,
is proof "that the life lived according to the truth of the Gospel is anything
but man-made." This assertion however, begs many questions. Is hymn-singing
a "fruit of the spirit"? One must try the spirit. If the act is not in
accordance with God's law, it should not be assumed that this is a "fruit
of the Spirit." Is this an example of living life according to the truth
of the Gospel? If it is living life after the commandments and traditions
of men, without the commandment of God, it should not be assumed that this
is an aspect of the Christian's life that flows from his Christianity,
but from the old man, who, if he can not have a complete rebellion against
God, will at times settle for a partial, hidden rebellion. But this brings
in the last question that ought to be asked. Are Christians at all times
led by the Spirit of God in their worship in such a way that there can
be nothing therein contrary to God's law? Now, it is certain that insofar
as the Spirit of God does graciously lead Christians in their worshipping
of God, thus far that worship is undoubtedly in conformity to his law.
But the common experience and acknowledgement of every true Christian while
living this life is that he does never truly worship God as he ought. His
worship is not prefect, but tainted with wandering thoughts, sinful distractions,
and other wickedness. Likewise, it has been the case that some have gone
wrong in regards to the very form of their worship. To argue that Christians
are so sanctified by the Spirit that there can be nothing sinful
in their worship with regard to the manner in which they go about worshipping
God is to argue for an inspired, infallible behaviour from which we may
learn God's will, not unlike that of some enthusiastic charismatics. The
only time that a Christian's worship may be considered in any sense 'inspired'
is when that worship consists only of obedience to the commandments of
God, found in his inspired word. "To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light
in them." (Isaiah 8.20) If worship is not according to the Word
of Christ, then it is not from the Spirit of Christ.

In the next paragraph of SGC's statement, representations of the position
of exclusive psalmody are made suggesting that it is held that "expressions
of thanks or praise that do not consist in a verbatim quotation of Scripture"
are inherently untruthful. This is only to mock those that argue for exclusive
psalmody as well as any reader of the SGC position statement. There is
no truth in this representation. Likewise, the suggestion that the position
affirms an 'inherent' sinfulness in these words for this reason is
also dishonest (or at best highly uninformed) and has been addressed already.
It is not held by the proponents of exclusive psalmody that it is "impossible
for the Church to confess the truth with any certainty, " for the Church's
Confession of Faith as adopted in 1647 is an evident demonstration of her
ability to, at times and by the grace of God, confess the truth without
any error. All true Presbyterians and Christians condemn the philosophy
of Van Til & the Skepticsthey do not seek to make use of it to defend
Exclusive Psalmody.

Hereafter another argument is laid down, not to refute the claim made
by the supporters of exclusive psalmody, that the institution of hymn-singing
is man-made and therefore sinful, but the less relevant claim that the
hymns are man-made and therefore not the institution that God has made.
This second claim, made by some of the supporters of exclusive psalmody
is inaccurate however, and it should rather be stated "that hymns are not
of the 150 psalms given and authorized by God (for the purpose of singing)
and therefore not the institution that God has made." The SGC statement
produces nothing of effect however, because it does not even prove that
hymns are not 'man-made,' but only that they may be true and confessed
by grace. This therefore, does not go far enough to refute the claims
of those supporting exclusive psalmody, and indeed, if it went any further,
it would only prove that such hymns were infallibly inspired.But as stated
above, this is not the issue. The inerrancy of many orthodox hymns is evident
and may really be known by sinful men if their minds are enlightened by
the Spirit of God; but though the text of the hymns was inspired by God,
they must also have his inspired authorizingcommandment
to be used as Psalms. If they are not used as Psalms, then it is
not evident from scripture what they shall be used as.

Having thus demonstrated that hymns can be just as true as Psalms (a
matter true, but certainly not to be boasted of,) it is concluded that
the "concern of exclusive Psalmody can only be maintained with respect
to the form of the words, and must be separated from the meaning of the
words sung." Perhaps this is true, and indeed, it might have been far more
easily demonstrated by the fact that exclusive Psalmody also excludes the
use of other "scripture songs" as they too can only be used without God's
warrant. But, ought Christians to have no concern with the "form
of sound words?" (II Tim. 1.13.) Indeed, it is likely that even the SGC
Session would oppose replacing the book of psalms in their Bibles with
a hymnal, even if they were given the grand and lofty seat of authority
to decide which hymns ought to be included and which ought not. But if
SGC offends at being asked to replace the 150 Psalms in her Bibles with
150 orthodox and edifying hymns, composed by men sanctified by the Spirit
of God, why ought not those that sing only the Songs of Zion be offended
when they are asked to trade in their Psalter for a Hymnal with so much
of the same substance of truth and edifying content? It may be that the
reasons here are different. It may not be. But in either case, the reasons
have to do with this so-called "form of the words."

Furthermore, accusations against the position of exclusive psalmody
suggesting that a greater significance is placed on the form than the meaning
of the words used must be met with the following observations:

Whenever the form is preserved, the meaning is also necessarily preserved.
By a concern for form, nothing of the substance or meaning of the words
is ever lost or compromised.

The accusation is dishonest. Exclusive psalmody does not place a greater
or undue significance in the form. The fact is however, that the position
of exclusive Psalmody does place some significance in the form.
It considers both form and meaning to be of importance to the point where
they are essential, but this does not necessarily imply an exalting of
form over substance. Likewise, the very idea is meaningless so long as
one is holding to the exclusive psalmody position, because none of the
truth or meaning of the psalms can be compromised while holding to the
psalms themselves.

The position which SGC claims to take, that form is not important, is contrary
to the scripture (II Tim 1.13) and a position that she would never hold
consistently. It is certain that exceptions would be made such as that
instanced above (in the matter of replacing the Psalter in one's Bible
with a hymnal.)

SGC does not actually do as she claims. She does not give preference to
the meaning of the psalms over the form and she definitely does not ignore
the form. If this were so, she would have contented herself with the 150
heavenly hymns received of God. She would have had no reason to abandon
the form of the Psalms. It is evident therefore that, ignoring arguments
in favour of adhering to the Psalms appointed by God (if for nothing else,
for uniformity among God's people throughout all nations and in all presbyteries
and congregations) SGC has out of an undue regard for form, chosen other
forms to make the matter of her worship-song. She is guilty of what she
accuses, though she knows it not.

Next, it is asserted that "It is not possible to express true thankfulness
and Godly fear and be other than worshipping." Now, this "true thankfulness"
either has reference to the outward act, or to the spiritual act. With
regard to the outward act, the statement is evidently not true, as affirmed
by the SGC statement earlier, "It is possible to sing the words of the
canonical psalms and to not be worshipping." The obvious reason implied
is that there may yet be no spiritual worship. The statement above must
therefore have reference to the spiritual act. But, while the psalm-singer
may not be worshipping when he sings the Psalms if he does not believe,
so the hymn-singer does not worship when he sings his hymns because he
does not obey. If unbelief or misbelief can poison the worship of the one,
presumption and will-worship poison the worship of the latter. Both may
outwardly express "true thankfulness and godly fear" at some level, and
both may sincerely believe that they are serving their God, but, for all
that, they are not worshipping God in spirit or in truth. If true worship
"is found in that expression born of the Spirit" then it is not found among
those who are led by another spirit to worship God in ways that He has
not commanded nor in those that exalt themselves to Christ's throne as
usurping tyrants and institute new hymns of their own or anyone else's
composition.

Let it be reaffirmed therefore, in response to the conclusion of the
SGC statement on argument two, that it is impossible for those who are
adhering to the Psalms to be exalting the form over the meaning, for none
of the meaning can be compromised until the form is first changed from
its original. The observations therefore are dishonest and should rather
be directed at the favourers of the Songs of Bethel who have chosen to
move the meaning to a different form and make use of a new altar upon which
to offer the praises and thanksgiving of their hearts, an altar like
to the first, but not the same.

In response to the third argument presented (by SGC) as an argument
used to defend Exclusive Psalmody, the session statement begins by rejecting
"the point that an implicit message is communicated which diminishes the
authority and the uniqueness of the revelation of God when confession of
truth is joined with its biblical expression." In response, three things
should be noted. First, although it may not be the intention of
SGC to communicate an implicit message that "diminishes the authority and
the uniqueness of the revelation of God" and although a diminished respect
for "the authority and the uniqueness of the revelation of God" may not
necessarily be the reason for SGC's use of hymns, this does not
mean that no such message is communicated or could be communicated. It
is suggested by SGC in defence of her unwarrantable practice that

If the Scriptures are
faithfully read, sung, and confessed, the message communicated will always
point to the primacy of the word of God and the uniqueness and sufficiency
of His revelation, and the explicit truth of the primacy of the Word and
the sufficiency of Scripture as a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ will
be served by "un-inspired" confessions rather than diminished by them.

Now, it is granted, that explicitly, in regards to what is verbally said,
this is true. However, implicitly, with regard to what is understood by
the hearer, the faithful reading, singing, and confession of the scriptures
only point the hearer to the primacy of the word of God and the uniqueness
and sufficiency of His revelation when it is accompanied with the blessing
of God's Spirit. Without God's blessing, the entire Bible can be read,
sung, confessed, and expounded without any profit to those present. As
Thomas Boston observes in his sermon on "How the Word is Made Effectual
to Salvation" -

Doctrine: 'The word of God is the sword the Spirit makes use
of for raising up a kingdom to Christ.' This more fully in the words of
the Catechism, runs thus: 'The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially
the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting
sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith
unto salvation.'

In support of this, two scriptures are cited: 1 Cor. 3.5-6 and Heb. 4.2.
Such truths, together with the commands to read, sing, and confess God's
word for this end, are as sweet promises from God to those who will with
faith read, sing, and confess the Scriptures in obedience to God. But it
is presumption to expect that God will bless the institutions and commandments
of men, because He has never promised to do so. "Un-inspired confessions"
are commanded for certain purposes, but they are never commanded for
use as matter of praise in the ordinance of praise. Christians must
not ever think that they may make use of God's truth for any purpose they
please, and that they shall find success just because the instrument that
they are using is of God. Christians must instead, make use of God's
truth according to His commandments, thereby submitting themselves to be
used by God's truth. Therefore, if Christians will point others to the
supremacy and uniqueness of God's word, they must do so in accordance with
God's word, for there is no promise of a spiritual blessing apart from
this.

Second, in response to the above claim that "the authority and the uniqueness
of the revelation of God" is not diminished by any implicit message communicated
in the use of hymns, let it be noted that although a respect for God's
word as the infallible inspired Word of God may not be diminished, the
regard held for Christ's institutions in worship is diminished. Even if
it were true that hymns may direct the hearers to a proper regard for the
"truth of the Gospel" and the "inspired infallible word of God," yet the
institution of hymn-singing cannot direct the hearers away from a commandment
of men, to the institution of Psalmody, a commandment of God. So long as
the commandments and institutions of men are upheld, they are also exalted
to the position of the commandments and institutions of God. It is hoped
that no Protestant, and especially no professing Presbyterian, will argue
that this does not at least reflect a diminished respect for the
institutions of God.

Third, which flows naturally from the above considerations, although
a respect for God's word as the infallible inspired Word of God may not
be diminished by the content of the hymns, the regard held for the authority
of Christ as King over his holy hill of Zion is diminished by their use.
No longer is He High Priest to appoint His own ordinances of worship according
to His own will, but now He is compelled to bow to fellow "kings and priests"
so-called, who shall also appoint ordinances for His temple in accordance
with what service they are willing to yield to Him. They will do
what is right in their own eyes. Certainly then, to disregard that command,
"thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" does in fact diminish
the regard held for the authority of God, the institutions of God, and
even the commandments of God, and therefore the Word of God.

Furthermore, it is asked by the SGC Session, does the singing of an
uninspired confession in combination with the reading and singing of Scripture
constitute "a de facto undermining of Scripture read and sung?" As an answer
to this she suggests that because "non-inspired" sermons do not diminish
the reading of the Scriptures, therefore, "non-inspired" hymns do not necessarily
diminish the reading of the Scriptures either. Let it be observed however,
that:

Scripture reading and Psalm singing are, to sinful men, de facto
vain and nothing but the repetition of a dead letter until they are blessed
by the Spirit of God graciously working in the hearts of the hearers. The
question is therefore not whether uninspired words have an inherent
ability to nullify the inspired word of God because they are uninspired,
but whether it can be expected that God will bless the use of His word
when mixed with the leaven of those who keep the traditions of their fathers.
Will God bless the use of hymns? He has never promised to do so. Will God
continue to bless the reading of His Word when it is accompanied with the
commandments of men? Let these questions first be answered: Will God accept
the sacrifice offered on the altar polluted by the tools of men? Will God
dwell in the temple polluted with the abominations of the heathen? Now,
if God does not approve of His ordinances when they have been altered by
men, and threatens to depart from that temple where the commandments of
men are established, what promise is there that his Spirit will continue
to remain and bless His Word when the ordinance of hymn-singing is established?
Let it therefore be concluded, that although God may, according to His
good pleasure, exercise His gracious influences in a sovereign way, contrary
to any impediments offered by men, winking (Acts 17.30) at the accompanying
institutions of men for a time, He does never promise to do so anywhere.
Thus, the Christian who desires to walk uprightly in God's service according
to His commandments is compelled to flee from the altars of the High
Places.

In light of the real reason (given above) why God's word is ever graciously
effective in the hearts of sinful men, it is obvious that the real reason
why the proponents of exclusive psalmody believe that non-inspired hymns
will have a negative influence upon the hearers while "non-inspired" sermons
may have a positive influence upon the attenders thereto, is because they
believe that God will bless the "non-inspired" sermons of His faithful
servants, while at the same time they refuse to presume He will bless any
hymns used in the praise ordinance but those found among the 150 Psalms
in their Bibles.

The reason why the keepers of Zion's Songs reject uninspired hymns while
keeping "non-inspired sermons" is not because of inspiration. If this were
so, all words of the Bible would be admitted as hymns for God's service.
But this is not done. Rather, the reason that sermons are admitted and
hymns are not is because one is the ordinance of God, founded on commands
to preach, teach, and exhort, and the other is the ordinance of men founded
on the ungrounded assumption of a right among Christians to

Sing as Praise whatsoever seems good in their own eyes and command others
to do the same.

Compose new songs to include among those that God has given, for the purpose
that God has given them.

Establish an ordinance for the singing of new songsa commandment of men.

The validity of using "non-inspired" sermons does not validate the use
of non-inspired scriptures for scripture reading, nor would the SGC Session
argue that it does. It is therefore clear that each particular ordinance
of worship has its own accidents which are essential to the proper use
of that ordinance and are to be determined by the scriptures alone. If
God gives His people a command to sing and then hands them a Psalter of
150 Psalms fit for His praise, they should not respond any differently
than they did when He commanded them to read the Law, and then handed them
a Bible.

The fact that scriptures such as Nehemiah 8.8 can be cited to support the
"non-inspired" exposition of the Scriptures should lead the keepers of
the Songs of Bethel to question why they cannot produce scriptures to positively
defend their ordinance.

Furthermore, as the conclusion of the SGC statement's response to argument
three reiterates its claim that a greater weight is placed on the form
than the meaning of the expressions used in God's worship, it must be reiterated
that this claim is both incorrect and dishonest. Never are the orthodox
and edifying truths of the meaning of the hymns rejected by keeping to
the infallibly orthodox and edifying form of the Psalms. If this distinction
is to be made, then it is only the form of the orthodox hymns that
is rejected. It is therefore clear that although some weight is placed
on the form of these expressions, indeed, so much that where the proper
form is not present, the expressions themselves are rejected because of
their form, yet this weight cannot be identified as being greater than
the weight placed on the meaning of the expression because the meaning
of the expression used in singing the Psalms does in no way come short
of expressing the edifying and enlightening truths of the Gospel. Only
those are to be identified as placing a greater weight on the form than
on the meaning, who choose to express their thanksgiving and praise in
the forms of Isaac Watts and Augustus Toplady rather than those of Jesus
Christ who delivered unto His servants both the substance and form of the
hymns He would have them sing with Him and to Him.

In the beginning of her response to point four, SGC represents the proponents
of exclusive psalmody as "establishing a law which forbids all but canonical
psalms to be sung in worship to God, and calling it the 'regulative principle
of worship.'" This can only be identified as another false and misleading
representation of the entire position of exclusive psalmody and the defenders
of reformed worship. Those who are contending against the commandments
of men, are not seeking to establish any new law. The Regulative Principle
of Worship formerly acknowledged and confessed to be true by SGC is
now mocked as the imagination of the hearts of men and a matter relating
to only a strange institution regarding worship song. Those who hold to
the institution referred to as Exclusive Psalmody do no differently
in keeping hymns out of their Psalters than those who refuse to admit other
books, otherwise true for their substance, into their Bibles. No law is
established. They are merely adhering to that general law, "thou shalt
not add thereto," established long ago. When God shall command the singing
of "Rock of Ages" and "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," then these shall
be added to their Book of Praise. Until then, the only laws of men to be
found are among those who establish a new law by adding to their Psalters
these unauthorized hymns and presenting them to be sung with the Psalms.
If they have not the command of God, then they have only the command of
men. The Regulative Principle of Worship should therefore be viewed
not merely as the law forbidding the use of hymns, but as the law forbidding
the ordaining of any new law or institution in God's worship, including
those commanding or "permitting" the use of hymns.

Again, the alleged inconsistency of not forbidding all uninspired preaching,
speaking, &c. is brought forth because no law is established
against these by those who purportedly "establish a law which forbids
all but canonical psalms to be sung." As asserted before, these activities
are supported by positive commandments of God and approved examples. The
institution of hymnody is not, and the reason why hymns are not used is,
not the mere fact that they are uninspired, but the fact that they are
unauthorized.

Following this allegation it is then suggested that Christians "are
protected from error by the power of God, by which they are sustained in
the faith he gives through the message of the Cross." This statement is
true, but it must be noted that those who walk contrary to the commandments
of God, many of which are given as means for their protection and guidance,
are those who are often given up to their own delusions and a reprobate
mind so that they wander further and further from Jerusalem until they
come so far as Canterbury or even Babylon.

Next it is asserted that "it is the responsibility of the Elders of
the Church" to determine what may be sung in church. Is it also the responsibility
of the Elders to determine what may be read as Scripture? This is Independency
to the extreme. It is Independency from Jesus Christ, the Head of the True
Church, who has already determined both what is to be read, and what is
to be sung. In time past, the only persons to exercise this sort of responsibility
were the prophets, and this they did in submission to Him who appointed
them to this office with this responsibility.

Continuing, it is asserted that, "The safeguard from false teaching
is found in the active care and instruction of the Church and not in a
law which forbids the Church from singing any but canonical Psalms." As
has been said before, the dangers of false teaching are not the grounds
of the Exclusive Psalmody position. They are merely reinforcing reasons
why hymnody is not adopted by those who know no command of God dictating
or suggesting that such should be done. It should be noted however, that
the reasoning concerning "the safeguard from false teaching" is not used
to support the idea of introducing unauthorized Scriptures. The fact that
new scriptures could be introduced "safely" into the Bible (that is, without
inserting heresy) does not validate the practice. Neither does the fact
that new hymns could be introduced "safely" into the authorized Hymnal
validate that practice. Therefore, it cannot be argued that newly authorized
hymns can be sung as Psalms, because they cannot be added to the
book of Psalms any more than other scriptures can be added to the Holy
Scriptures. But if hymns cannot be sung as Psalms, then they are
another institution apart from that established by Christ in his commanding
that His Psalms be sung. And if no new institutions, ordinances, or commandments
are to be admitted of in the Church of Christ, then no hymns are to be
sung upon any pretense whatsoever.

Furthermore, the argument that concludes from the "safety" of singing
certain hymns a necessary usefulness and reason to establish the same is
inherently man-centered. That concern can only be considered as man-centered
which makes sure man gets the truth he needs and does not take into
consideration whether or not God has the obedience He demands. Likewise,
the proponents of exclusive psalmody do not claim an "inherent refuge [from
false teaching] is found in maintaining the formal practice of singing
only the words of Scripture" because singing any other words of Scripture
besides those commanded to be sung also communicates a heretical view of
the institutions of worship appointed by Christ and a profane attitude
with regard to the Holy Scriptures, which makes them to be a tool to be
used by us according to our pleasure, rather than the Sword of the Spirit
which we only use rightly when we do so in accordance with the divine laws
set down therein, and are thus used by the Scripture. Whatever imperfections
and dangers may be identified in the practice of exclusive psalmody, these
are all accidental to the institution itself and flow rather from the imperfections
of those singing the psalms than the psalms themselves. The psalms, being
of divine origin, are necessarily perfect. Uninspired hymns however, being
of human origin, may be perfect as to their content, but they are not so
necessarily. Rather, the hymns used shall be subject to the imperfections
of those authorizing and approving them, as well as the imperfections of
the composer. Therefore, the imperfections and dangers associated with
the ordinance of hymnody are inherent in the ordinance itself, because
they flow from the same source as the hymns. It is true, and to be granted,
that God could have instituted a hymnody-based praise ordinance despite
these "dangers," and could have made clear this institution from His word
(thus giving assurance of his blessingthat we may sing with true faith,)
and then the practice would be just as valid as the singing of Psalms,
but all the same, it must be granted that the institution of Psalmody (assuming
a "faithful" preaching of the Word and exercise of Church discipline in
both cases) is inherently "safer" than an institution of uninspired
hymnody.

The concluding rejection of the concerns of argument four might have
been ignored since the actual concerns of this argument do not necessarily
establish the ordinance of Exclusive Psalmody, seeing God could have instituted
a system for the establishment of hymnody in His church, in which case
it would be blasphemy to bring these concerns against God. However, because
God did not institute such a system in His word, and therefore does not
will that any such should be established, it is appropriate that the singers
of the Songs of Bethel be warned that they are not promised a blessing
of God's Spirit upon the use of the songs that they adopt, nor upon the
institution whereby they are adopted. Therefore, they are exposed to dangers
to which Zion's singers are not, and do have reason for concern. The suggestion
that God's truth should be relied on apart from the form thereof for expression
is entirely pointless, seeing God's truth cannot be authoritatively
(in the sense of a supreme & final authority) learned & tried from
anywhere but the Scriptures where that truth is revealed through an inspired
form. If the "truth itself is the only safeguard against error" and
the form thereof is unimportant, then it is not true that the Scripture
(with its inspired form) is "the supreme judge by which all controversies
of religion are to be determined " (WCF 1.10) But it is not supposed that
any but Papists, Heathen, and Atheists will deny this. Furthermore, it
must be noted that, with regard to what Christians are to trust in for
the preservation from error, SGC is incorrect here as well. It is not the
truth itself (in an inspired form or otherwise) which Christians are to
trust in or "rely" on for an orthodox understanding of the truth.
It is only the blessing of God upon His word through the gracious operation
of His Spirit in the believer's heart that can secure this preservation
from error by enlightening him so that he understands and embraces with
love the Truth that he hears. The proponents of Exclusive Psalmody
do not place their trust in the ordinance of Exclusive Psalmody, but in
the God who has exclusively ordained Psalmody.

With regard to musical instruments, the fifth point discussed in the
SGC statement, there continues to be a misunderstanding of the entire argument
of those that hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship. The statement
that a "concern for outward form is seen in the insistence on a prescriptive
requirement forbidding the use of musical instruments in worship" labels
those who will not institute the use of musical instruments as having instituted
a law forbidding the use of musical instruments. But the entire argument
offered against musical instruments is of a very different nature. Indeed,
those that adhere to the forms of worship established by Christ as
established by Christ do not seek to make any law, but only complain that
those who have introduced the use of musical instruments have established
a law permitting them by establishing their own worship ordinance. As with
the introduction of hymns, so likewise with the introduction of musical
instruments: if they are not brought in by the commandment of God, then
they are brought in by the commandment of men. That this is a worship ordinance
(or at least part of another) and not a mere circumstance is evident by
the words of the SGC session itself which confesses the use of musical
instruments to be "an expression for the glory of God." It is astounding
that such an act could be esteemed as something done for the glory of God,
when it has never been commanded by Him and therefore cannot be an act
of obedience. Such an act, outside of the Levitical service of the Jewish
Temple can only be esteemed as an honoring of men, since it can only be
done in obedience to men. Furthermore, as with the introduction of hymns,
the use of musical instruments also reveals an undue concern for outward
form because it expresses a discontentment with the singing of the psalms
the way that Christ appointed. Musical instruments do not introduce themselves,
they are introduced with specific intentions by men who put much effort
into providing for their use. As musical instruments are entirely unnecessary
to the singing of the Psalms, and as their inclusion in the worship of
God is no true worshipping of God, not being any obedience to His revealed
will, so it is evident that these instruments must be introduced only out
of an undue concern for outward forms, namely sound,such a sound as is
useful only to the pleasing of men and artificial exciting of their emotions.

Here again, as before with hymns, the Session of SGC asserts that the
presence or use of instruments in worship is not inherently sinful.
But as with hymns, this is besides the point also with musical instruments.
Those that contend against the use of musical instruments in Christ's Church
are not unaware of the fact that the ancient ceremonies of the Temple included
the use of musical instruments by specific families and persons of the
Tribe of Levi, and that therefore, the use of musical instruments in worship
cannot be 'inherently' sinful. It is then contended by SGC that because
the use of musical instruments are mentioned frequently during the old
dispensation, any argument from silence in the New Testament should lead
to the conclusion that musical instruments were included in the use of
the early Church. This method of reasoning however is founded on the ungrounded
assumption that the New Testament Church finds its origin in the Old Testament
Temple. But contrary to this, the development of the New Testament Church
as related in the Acts of the Apostles as well as the Epistles, indicates
that the churches of the New Testament did not take their being or order
from the Temple, but rather from the local meetings of individual congregations
in synagogues and houses, under the direction of the inspired Apostles.
Now, if the meeting of individual congregations of the early Church found
their origin in the congregations of the Jews in synagogues and houses,
then an argument from silence in the New Testament scriptures regarding
the use of music instruments should not lead to the conclusion that temple
ordinances were adopted into the homes and synagogues of local congregations
as the Christian Church took root, but that the Church would have patterned
the synagogue which did not make use of musical instruments. Therefore,
whether the ceremonial dichotomy mentioned afterwards in the SGC statement
is valid or not, it remains that any argument from silence does in fact
lead to the conclusion that instruments were not used. Furthermore, silence
on this issue does not only indicate that the Church did not then use musical
instruments, but also constitutes a lack of divine warrant for the use
of musical instruments by any who would later introduce the practice.

Next it is asserted by the SGC session that the ceremonial institutions
of the Old Testament were ordained by God only for the sake of demonstrating
a sacred versus secular dichotomy symbolic of the distinction "between
the imputed righteousness of Christ and all human expressions of righteousness."
It is then argued that because the purpose and use of this dichotomy was
fulfilled and completed by Jesus Christ, no such distinction between clean
and unclean exists any longer. But ceremonial distinctions of clean and
unclean are not the same as moral distinctions of lawful and sinful. Indeed,
this reasoning would be useful in considering what institutions ought to
be kept as temple ordinances, but it has absolutely no relevance to the
spiritual worship common to both the New Testament churches and the Old
Testament synagogues wherein are never found the ceremonies of the temple
such as the use of musical instruments and the burning of incense, but
only such worship as has been commanded by God to all people in all places.
Now, if the use of musical instruments can no longer be continued as
the ceremonial worship of God because this has been abrogated by Christ,
and the Father will now only be worshipped in spirit and in truth
(John 4.), then they who will use musical instruments to worship God must
use them in the spiritual worship of private, family, or public worship.
But although neither a horn nor a pipe is an unclean thing (nor was it
ever,) yet it is morally a sin to introduce, and so institute, such ceremonial
worship as to use these instruments in the service of that God who will
now no longer be worshipped ceremonially (except by such new ceremonies
as He Himself has instituted in the New Testament.) Therefore, the use
of such instruments in the worship of God at this day cannot but be considered
as the institutions and commandments of men bringing in again the shadows
of the ceremonial law and thus detracting from the spiritual nature of
that worship authorized by God.

Hereafter in the SGC Statement is found a denial of "the dichotomy between
activity and behaviour appropriate to the 'formal' worship service of the
people of God and the activity and behavior appropriate to their everyday
lives." All true proponents of Exclusive Psalmody seek to apply the Regulative
Principle of Worship in their private and family worship as well as
in "corporate worship." Likewise, it is agreed, that in these situations,
and throughout all of life, one ought to have the same "attitude of reverence
and awe" at God's grace which necessarily compels him to present himself
as a living sacrifice unto God in all that he does.

The concluding statements regarding argument five begin with the assertion
that "the Bible cannot be used to support" the claim that "there is something
inherently evil and corrupting about a Christian using a musical instrument?"
Naturally this is the case, since the Bible relates how the Levite Christians
of old were commanded to use musical instruments, and that even in the
worship of God. The question to be asked however, is not whether there
is something "inherently evil" in a Christian using such instruments, but
whether such a use of musical instruments to worship God which is not done
in obedience to his commandments is legally sinful and proceeds
from a corrupt principle of worship. Those that hold to the Regulative
Principle of Worship (uncorrupted) maintain, in accordance with scripture,
that any principle of worship which admits of the commandments and traditions
of men is contrary to the revealed will of God and to be held in contempt
as a corrupt principle which offers to God the things concerning which
He spake not. Likewise, they hold that to be corrupt which proceeds
from this corrupted principle, including the instruments of musick which
men will "invent to themselves" though they be like David's (Amos
6.5) because they cannot be David's, which were the only instruments
ever authorized by God.

And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD
with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment
of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was
the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. And the
Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.
(2 Chronicles 29:25-26)

If the instruments of music are not used according to the "commandment
of the LORD by his prophets," then it matters not
how much they are like the instruments of David, they are not the
instruments commanded by God, and therefore, their use cannot be any obedience
to the commandments of the Lord, unless new commandments are revealed by
new prophets. Such instruments as are not used in obedience to the commandments
of the Lord, can only be used sinfully in worship as an act of obedience
to the commandments of men (imposing themselves on the ordinances of God)
and therefore shall be left to the followers of the new prophets and
new spirits who have not contented themselves with the simplicity
of that worship in spirit and in truth which is void of all such unnecessary,
burdensome, and form-oriented ceremonial worship.

In conclusion, let it be observed that the above arguments of the SGC
Session intend effectively (although they fail) to make the Regulative
Principle of Worship to be removed by Christ's fulfillment of the Ceremonial
Law, while at the same time they allow the continued use of the institutions
of the Ceremonial Law. But such reasoning must certainly be erroneous when
it ends in the abrogation of a Law which is Natural and therefore
unchangeable, namely, the Regulative Principle of Worship, which
point was made above. Likewise, the reasoning of the SGC Session must be
seen as highly questionable when it effectively makes the abrogation of
the Ceremonial Law to leave unchanged one specific Positive
institution of the Law, which institutions, being positive, are
changeable, and were ordained as such so that they might be changed.
These two observations alone should be sufficient to direct those adhering
to the position of SGC to reconsider whether their position has any real
ground at all, besides the arbitrary commandments & unbiblical presuppositions
of men.